Don’t fake a public kidnapping to make your YouTube video pop

Five Aussie twentysomethings get a free filmmaking lesson from the police.

On September 18, 2012, the Western Australia police received a call from the Perth suburb of Leederville. The caller had just seen a young man "roll out the back of a vehicle and run into nearby bushland at the intersection of Leederville Parade and Vincent Street" in the early afternoon, according to a police press release issued the next day. The young man looked to be a skinny white 14-year-old boy with no shirt or shoes, but he was handcuffed, and his mouth was taped over. As he ran from the car, he was "pursued by a man wearing a blue chequered shirt and blue cap, who may have also come from the same vehicle."

The case was made stranger by the fact that, when police arrived to investigate, they could find nothing wrong, nor could they find other witnesses despite heavy traffic in the area. Not sure what to think, police conceded that "this incident may be a prank or a hoax, however police also hold concerns that it may be legitimate and if such, need to investigate further."

Fast forward to this week, when detectives announced charges against five young men between the ages of 21 and 25. The charges weren't about kidnapping, however, but about "creating a false belief" as the men tried to film an awesome viral video. "It will be alleged the incident was a planned hoax by five men," the police announced, "who recorded the incident and then edited the footage prior to uploading it to the Internet to one of the offenders' Youtube account."

Had the young men used another Google product to search the Web, they might have learned that police don't take kindly to such incidents. Not that this has stopped plenty of teenagers from making such videos in the past.

Other than alarming passers-by (and isn't that what kids normally do anyway?) what harm are they doing?

Well, being an attention whore without wasting public resources might be a good civics lesson for young people. Can you imagine this happening here, especially in those "Stand Your Ground" states? It would be quite foolish and potentially tragic to pull off a stupid stunt like this.

Other than alarming passers-by (and isn't that what kids normally do anyway?) what harm are they doing?

Someone saw what appeared to be a real kidnapping and reported it to the police, who then swung into action to investigate. They wasted police time and with police budgets always being under scrutiny, that hurts the general public.

At the minimum, they should have put out some bright signs noting that they're filming something.

Calculate the charges. And charge each and every one of them for the full amount.

Problem Solved.

Inclined to agree, that would cover the opportunity cost that the cops could have been (potentially) solving real crimes. While it does sound like troublesome kids, the crime here was more stupidity than malicious intent.

Which is why people who aspire to be real film makers know to contact the local police and inform people at their chosen shooting location. Big cameras aren't just for higher quality video but because it also marks you as a performance and not ye random hooligans.

Other than alarming passers-by (and isn't that what kids normally do anyway?) what harm are they doing?

Well, being an attention whore without wasting public resources might be a good civics lesson for young people. Can you imagine this happening here, especially in those "Stand Your Ground" states? It would be quite foolish and potentially tragic to pull off a stupid stunt like this.

We're a country of morbidly obese people who need guns because they can't find their balls. Australia, however, is not. To my knowledge the Aussies don't have the human trafficking problem that a lot of southern states do, nor do they really deal with drug trafficking as much as we do. Ruining people's lives over stupidity is absolutely ridiculous.

In my opinion, police receive funding to ensure safety - not punish for stupidity that turned out harmless. Give them a very public slap on the wrist - something like 5,000 USD/each, and let them go.

In case you're curious like I was, here's the law being referenced. Source. Note that the penalty actually does include the possibility of repaying costs. Also, IANAL, but it looks like prosecutors will have to prove they intended to crease a false belief rather than they were negligent while filming something.

Quote:

171. Creating false belief

(1) In this section —

belief means a belief or suspicion that —

(a) an offence has been or is about to be committed;

(b) human safety is or may be endangered;

(c) human life has or may have been lost;

(d) property is or may be endangered;

(e) property has or may have been destroyed;

(f) there is a fire that needs to be put out,

and that is of such a nature as would reasonably call for action by the Police Force or by emergency services.

(2) A person who does or omits to do any act with the intention of creating a false belief is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

Summary conviction penalty: imprisonment for 12 months and a fine of $12 000.

(3) A court convicting a person of an offence under this section may order the person to pay all or some of the reasonable expenses of or incidental to any action that was reasonably taken as a result of the offence, whether or not by the Police Force or emergency services.

(4) The order must specify the person or persons to whom the amount is to be paid.

(5) Part 16 of the Sentencing Act 1995 applies to and in respect of an order made under subsection (3) as if it were a compensation order made under that Part.

Other than alarming passers-by (and isn't that what kids normally do anyway?) what harm are they doing?

Well, being an attention whore without wasting public resources might be a good civics lesson for young people. Can you imagine this happening here, especially in those "Stand Your Ground" states? It would be quite foolish and potentially tragic to pull off a stupid stunt like this.

These laws basically say that if you are attacked, you aren't legally required to flee before you use deadly force to defend yourself. It doesn't allow you to use deadly force if you weren't already justified in doing so. It only means you don't have to try to run away first.

So obviously, Stand Your Ground laws would have no impact whatsoever on someone jumping into a situation they were not already involved in.

Other than alarming passers-by (and isn't that what kids normally do anyway?) what harm are they doing?

Well, being an attention whore without wasting public resources might be a good civics lesson for young people. Can you imagine this happening here, especially in those "Stand Your Ground" states? It would be quite foolish and potentially tragic to pull off a stupid stunt like this.

These laws basically say that if you are attacked, you aren't legally required to flee before you use deadly force to defend yourself. It doesn't allow you to use deadly force if you weren't already justified in doing so. It only means you don't have to try to run away first.

So obviously, Stand Your Ground laws would have no impact whatsoever on someone jumping into a situation they were not already involved in.

In fact, if you carry a weapon you are encouraged specifically not to insert yourself into this type of situation. Juries don't look kindly on people who go looking for an excuse to use a weapon. With Stand Your Ground laws and really any situation the weapon should only every be the choice of last resort.

While we're on the subject of fake videos, are those videos where guys film themselves getting punched in the nuts in creative ways real? I used to watch ATOTS before it was cancelled and they used to have a segment where they showed videos from around the web.

A lot of these videos showed guys filming themselves punching their nuts in creative ways -- like falling down and landing nut first on a piece of wood or something. Part of me can't believe its possible for a male to subject themselves to such pain that I wonder if these are faked.

These laws basically say that if you are attacked, you aren't legally required to flee before you use deadly force to defend yourself. It doesn't allow you to use deadly force if you weren't already justified in doing so. It only means you don't have to try to run away first.

So obviously, Stand Your Ground laws would have no impact whatsoever on someone jumping into a situation they were not already involved in.

When many people these days refer to "Stand Your Ground" laws, they generally mean those states where the courts have the attitude that you can pretty much fire at anybody as long as you can come up with a half-decent excuse. Though that's obviously not what Stand Your Ground means, people associate this "wild wild west" attitude with Stand Your Ground, because they tend to go hand in hand with each other.

I got pulled over for doing this with my friends in '99. We "abducted" a friend from a 7-11 and threw him in the trunk. He stayed there through the short, but highway-speed chase we had when a guy getting gas followed us. A patrol car driving by saw the chase and pulled us over. I pulled into an IHop parking lot and popped the trunk. After inspecting the trunk and finding my friend the police immediately drew their guns and approached the car. Things calmed down after they spoke with my friend. They got real interested in some circuit boards/electronics they found when they searched the car. And I had to explain they were for my high school electronics class. Ultimately the cops were cool and let us go. I got stuck with a speeding ticket and a violation for running a red light (which I technically didn't do, but I wasn't going to complain). It was an awesome Friday night.

Other than alarming passers-by (and isn't that what kids normally do anyway?) what harm are they doing?

Well, being an attention whore without wasting public resources might be a good civics lesson for young people. Can you imagine this happening here, especially in those "Stand Your Ground" states? It would be quite foolish and potentially tragic to pull off a stupid stunt like this.

These laws basically say that if you are attacked, you aren't legally required to flee before you use deadly force to defend yourself. It doesn't allow you to use deadly force if you weren't already justified in doing so. It only means you don't have to try to run away first.

So obviously, Stand Your Ground laws would have no impact whatsoever on someone jumping into a situation they were not already involved in.

The problem with Stand Your Ground is they are poorly written laws that have already been interpretted by some US court rulings basically sanctioning viligante justice. Without Stand Your Ground, you already have the right to protect yourself until you can remove yourself from a bad situation forced on you by a criminal. Stand Your Ground's only use is to legalize the use of deadly force in place of a citizen's duty to retreat. If someone tries to steal your TV, or even your neighbor's TV, with Stand Your Ground, you have the right to kill them on the spot instead of retreating and calling the police. It's a law that has no place in our civilized society.

As for this fake kidnapping, the guys' intent wasn't to deceive the police into believing there was an actual crime being committed. At most these guys should get community service hours to make up for the tax payer money wasted on the investigation plus court costs. Period.

But 'duty to retreat' is just as subjective, if not more so, as to whether someone who defended themselves with deadly force could have retreated further instead. I'd rather have the law completely on my side if I ever have to defend myself with deadly force.

A coworker's son created a similar video but made one basic change in the filming procedure. He called the local sheriff's office and found out what their policy was on filming in the area. The sheriff's office not only said it was okay they didn't even have to pay for a permit. (Since it was for school credit.) An officer met them for the filming and assured anyone who was concerned. He got an A out of his film making class. They weren't allowed to include the officer in the film. If I can find the video, I will post it.

But 'duty to retreat' is just as subjective, if not more so, as to whether someone who defended themselves with deadly force could have retreated further instead. I'd rather have the law completely on my side if I ever have to defend myself with deadly force.

If you are threatened with immediate physical harm to your person which in most cases could be deadly, you already have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself. You already have the law on your side!

In many Stand Your Ground cases, a criminal makes off with stolen property, the victim gives chase and kills the criminal. Sure the victim gets his shit back immediately, but the criminal loses his life in the process - a far, FAR harsher punishment than would be doled out in a court of law. In some other cases, it's a case of mistaken threat of harm and Stand Your Ground allows you to shoot-to-kill first and ask questions later.

My friends and I were making a mafia-style video in high school involving (fake) guns and drugs. Someone called the police on us. They verified the guns (airsoft, orange tip) and drugs (bags of flour) were fake, told us to put up signs next time, and sent us on our way.

Reminds me of a digital video film production course that I took in the late '90s. The final project involved breaking the class into groups and filming a short movie or music video.

One group decided to make an action short depicting a grow rip with a running gun battle at its conclusion. The location for the shoot was at one of the student's houses in a fancy neighbourhood. For realism, they used at least one blank-firing firearm (starter pistol) and realistic props (non-firing fakes, cap guns, and some Larami Water-Uzis).

Several onlookers became alarmed at the sound of "gunfire" and the sight of black-clad thugs running around the neighbourhood, so they called 911. The RCMP's ERT (AKA "SWAT") was sent out and the "bad guys" were taken down. No shots were fired, luckily, but some of the students were thrown around.

The group made two versions of the final video: one for the original grow rip idea; and one depicting the ERT takedown. To be honest, the ERT takedown footage was great. The "action movie"... not so much.

Anyway, I guess the point is that there can be some serious consequences with this type of stunt. Seems like the potential for someone to be injured or killed is pretty high when the cops respond to a 911 call about Uzi-toting gangbangerss having a firefight in the middle of the street. (Yeah, no shit )

But 'duty to retreat' is just as subjective, if not more so, as to whether someone who defended themselves with deadly force could have retreated further instead. I'd rather have the law completely on my side if I ever have to defend myself with deadly force.

Do you care for the law if you have to defend yourself with deadly force? Either you have do use it or not.

Stand Your Ground does NOT NOT NOT permit you to chase after somebody and shoot them. That's what happened to Treyvon Martin, and his murderer thought he could just pick a fight and then claim he felt threatened, and daddy the judge almost got him off, but the public found out and now he's on trial.

There are enough effed up laws that without stand your ground, it is entirely possible for the perpetrator or their family to lawyer you to death in court even in clear-cut cases of self-defense. It's a shame we need two laws where only one should be needed, but we do.

Other than alarming passers-by (and isn't that what kids normally do anyway?) what harm are they doing?

Well, being an attention whore without wasting public resources might be a good civics lesson for young people. Can you imagine this happening here, especially in those "Stand Your Ground" states? It would be quite foolish and potentially tragic to pull off a stupid stunt like this.

These laws basically say that if you are attacked, you aren't legally required to flee before you use deadly force to defend yourself. It doesn't allow you to use deadly force if you weren't already justified in doing so. It only means you don't have to try to run away first.

So obviously, Stand Your Ground laws would have no impact whatsoever on someone jumping into a situation they were not already involved in.

The problem with Stand Your Ground is they are poorly written laws that have already been interpretted by some US court rulings basically sanctioning viligante justice. Without Stand Your Ground, you already have the right to protect yourself until you can remove yourself from a bad situation forced on you by a criminal. Stand Your Ground's only use is to legalize the use of deadly force in place of a citizen's duty to retreat. If someone tries to steal your TV, or even your neighbor's TV, with Stand Your Ground, you have the right to kill them on the spot instead of retreating and calling the police. It's a law that has no place in our civilized society.

As for this fake kidnapping, the guys' intent wasn't to deceive the police into believing there was an actual crime being committed. At most these guys should get community service hours to make up for the tax payer money wasted on the investigation plus court costs. Period.

No, of course it has a place in a civilized society. If someone breaks into your house, you should not legally have to run from them. The whole point of having a gun for defence is to make the bad guy run from you; not the other way around.

That intersection on a Tuesday afternoon is pretty busy (major freeway on ramp, next to a commercial/shopping/restaurant area) - sounds like the most stupid part of this whole prank was picking a spot where they would definitely be seen. Mind you, since nothing even vaguely exciting happens here, we should probably be grateful for someone trying to liven the place up.

Other than alarming passers-by (and isn't that what kids normally do anyway?) what harm are they doing?

Well, being an attention whore without wasting public resources might be a good civics lesson for young people. Can you imagine this happening here, especially in those "Stand Your Ground" states? It would be quite foolish and potentially tragic to pull off a stupid stunt like this.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Stand your ground laws don't allow you to randomly shoot people. You still have to have to be facing a reasonable threat of serious injury or death to defend yourself with lethal force. Stand your ground simply eliminates a "duty to retreat" if you are in a place that you are lawfully permitted to be in. All 50 states allow self defense if you don't have a safe avenue of retreat, and virtually no states require you to retreat from your home.

And you shouldn't have to imagine. There are millions of CCW permit holders in the north and south, so if they're randomly blasting at children carrying toy guns, you should be able to find news accounts of it. In fact, armed citizens have a significantly better track record than the police both in terms of target identification and of judicious use of firepower.

Other than alarming passers-by (and isn't that what kids normally do anyway?) what harm are they doing?

Well, being an attention whore without wasting public resources might be a good civics lesson for young people. Can you imagine this happening here, especially in those "Stand Your Ground" states? It would be quite foolish and potentially tragic to pull off a stupid stunt like this.

These laws basically say that if you are attacked, you aren't legally required to flee before you use deadly force to defend yourself. It doesn't allow you to use deadly force if you weren't already justified in doing so. It only means you don't have to try to run away first.

So obviously, Stand Your Ground laws would have no impact whatsoever on someone jumping into a situation they were not already involved in.

The problem with Stand Your Ground is they are poorly written laws that have already been interpretted by some US court rulings basically sanctioning viligante justice.